^Is this a WP first? I don't recall HailGreen and Giantone actually agreeing on anything ever... until now.

I called CNN but they sent me to FOX .

__________________ ....DISCLAIMER: All of my posts/threads are my expressed typed opinion and the reader is not to assume these comments are absolute fact, law, or truth unless otherwise stated in said post/thread.

Something tells me that Kansas City, with a stadium called arrowhead and its use of Indian imagery, is not named after a Chief Petty Officer. I could be wrong, but something tells me that I am not.

Also, if you call an actual Indian Chief a Chief, Im sure they will take it as a sign of respect. But there is no Indian Chief associated with the Kansas City Chiefs.

Im also not sure why you are trying to convince me of this. Im not the one lobbying Congress and had successfully lobbied the NCAA in the past about it. If Indians arent against these names, then why did the NCAA ban the use if Indian mascots at their request? Why is Stanford no longer called the Indians but are now called the Cardinals? Why did Florida State be required to get the consent of a Seminole Indian tribe and then have to go through a hearing with the NCAA to keep the name?

The Indians against the use of Redskins are against any and all Indian imagery used as mascots or any other for profit situation for that matter and call them all demeaning and racist. You have to ask them why, not me.

Exactly. The Chiefs could do away with the arrow on the helmet, let someone sponsor the stadium and insist the name no longer has anything to do with Native Americans. Redskins could do the same. Logos don't need to match the name.

I dont really care what its named after, its no longer Indians, which was my point. Although I do believe Stanford made that decision prior to the NCAA demanding it, but the name change was still done at the request of Indians.

I think you misread what I typed. I did not say to call any Indian a Chief. I said to call an Indian Chief a Chief. An Indian that is already recognized as a Chief and has earned the position of a Chief.

Cardinals is a common mistake that is made when talking about the Stanford nickname.

The indian was removed as the Stanford nickname in the 1970s when some Native American Stanford students raised the issue.

Exactly. The Chiefs could do away with the arrow on the helmet, let someone sponsor the stadium and insist the name no longer has anything to do with Native Americans. Redskins could do the same. Logos don't need to match the name.

And I'm sure the Chiefs fans would immediately stop going to games like this:

And I'm sure the Chiefs fans would immediately stop going to games like this:

They should. They look like idiots. Or the team could choose not to allow fans that dress like that enter the stadium. There are probably less than 100 that go to each game anyway. Far less at Skins games.

They should. They look like idiots. Or the team could choose not to allow fans that dress like that enter the stadium. There are probably less than 100 that go to each game anyway. Far less at Skins games.

Or they can still allow them in and let Oneida and others take up their grievances with fans. Every Halloween store in the country sells Indian costumes for man, woman, boy and girl. It's well within their rights to picket Halloween stores if their gripe is with people dressing up in Indian garb. People are allowed to be offended by anything they want.

If the Chiefs put a police logo on their helmets and fans continued to dress up like Indians, then oh well. Not sure how anyone can still hold the team accountable for that. Even if the Skins change their name, I can see people still dressing up like Indians. Actually, you'd probably see even more people do it out of protest of the new name.